The Jessica Dubroff Tragedy
george lin
John & Theresa Egan <je...@theriver.com> wrote:
>the mother made a reference that she was glad jessica died in
>joy, doing something she loved. personally i think she died in terror.
> she also allowed her three year old the "freedom" to ride around alone
>on a bike in the rain during the instructer's funeral .
> i heard the parents divorced 2 years ago. that explains to me the
>mothers apparent non-grief over the dad.
> terry
Last night KTVU-2 News showed bits of the funeral. The mother, tragically
for Jessica and her surviving siblings, is a New Age lunatic. She had
the mourners literally singing in the rain in the back yard. Her dismissal
of toys and play as frivolities, and her humorless, scary view of children
as little adults (power tools and cabinet-making for them, rather than
play) make for a disastrous upbringing. What a shame that you can't
choose your parents.
--
********
All hope is lost
*******
Miss Lo
<geor...@leland.Stanford.EDU> writes
>
>Last night KTVU-2 News showed bits of the funeral. The mother, tragically
>for Jessica and her surviving siblings, is a New Age lunatic. She had
>the mourners literally singing in the rain in the back yard.
Complete with top hat and choreography, of course!!
------------
Miss Lo
ASGTRP#29
"Ass, Gas, or Grass - no one rides for free"
Thomas K. Dibenedetto
: Last night KTVU-2 News showed bits of the funeral. The mother, tragically
: for Jessica and her surviving siblings, is a New Age lunatic. She had
: the mourners literally singing in the rain in the back yard.
Sounds pretty healthy to me....
: Her dismissal
: of toys and play as frivolities, and her humorless, scary view of children
: as little adults (power tools and cabinet-making for them, rather than
: play) make for a disastrous upbringing.
I dont find it humorless or scary, nor disastrous...
: What a shame that you can't choose your parents.
I sure as hell would have chosen some more like them than like you...
: ********
: All hope is lost
: *******
maybe thats why you sound like a narrow minded, petty and bitter person.
get a life, and leave others to live theirs!
Marlene Blanshay
write. Turns out loony-nird mom didn't ENROLL her. NO tv, no
children's books, but her own horse and airplane.
I think the babyboomers are pushing their children to be little
adults because they themselves never want to grow up.
Jeff Kirk
Has anyone paused to consider that this was something that *Jessica* wanted
to do, not just her parents? While I'll readily admit that parents obviously
have a great amount of influence on someone so young, it's also quite
possible that Jessica was the precocious type who insisted on being the best
and desperately wanted to be the youngest person ever to fly across the
globe. 7 year olds may be ignorant and immature regarding certain matters,
but they aren't stupid. While I don't have kids, I have an 11-year old
brother as a reference point, so I know what kids Jessica's age tend to act
like. Granted, a 7-year old isn't mature enough to be able to make the
decision to fly an airplane 100% by herself, but to blame the parents -
either of them - is to lay unnecessary harm on a family that will grief and
regret this error in judgment (flying in clearly unsafe conditions, that is)
for the rest of their lives. Losing a child is probably the worst thing that
can happen to any rational human, and to add insult onto injury is callous.
The mother may be a press manipulator out to score as many sympathy points as
possible with the general public, but she's still a woman who lost a daughter
and we can't forget what that must be doing to her. She might be in denial
right now, but down the road she'll realize what she's missing and feel the
full pain of this loss.
Jeff
Steve Gilliard
Mom is an emotional fascist. She bullied her kids and it was
clear she has no grip on reality.
She said she thought "the weather would move aside because
her daughter was a special person."
Gimmie a fuckin' break.
She obviously thought her kids were somehow immune to the
laws of physics and nature.
Where is the state of California in this? A social worker
needs to visit that home. It seems these people had no clue
about the real world. It just pisses me off. I wonder why
she isn't the subject of an investigation.
This is a humorless woman who seems to be bent on making a
cult of her kids. Her kids were so special, so perfect that
God had blessed them. Sure, and he cursed Ron Brown and 34
other people a week before.
The foolishness here is damn near criminal. If she sues the
estate of the pilot, she should lose her fucking kids. If
she tries to foist blame for this madness on anyone but
herself, she's delusional.
http://www.tiac.net/users/gilliard
The Gilliard News
Richard Bielak
>I kept wondering why Jessica wasn't in school learning to read and
>write. Turns out loony-nird mom didn't ENROLL her. NO tv, no
>children's books, but her own horse and airplane.
I don't know. Not TV, instead horses and airplanes. Doesn't sound so
bad too me. Try watching Saturday morning cartoons and the commercials
sometime...
In any case, this had nothing to do with the crash. Unfortunately the
CFI messed up...
...richie
--
* ric...@ritz.mordor.com - at home | Richie Bielak *
* ric...@calfp.com - at work | *
* >> If it were readable, it wouldn't be called "code". (me) << *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
JULIA36
From: kir...@onr.com (Jeff Kirk)
Date: 18 Apr 1996 06:01:01 GMT
Message-ID: <4l4lqt$r...@mari.onr.com>
<<Jeff>>
What really amazes me most about the mother is that for someone who
would not let her children watch TV, she can't turn away from a TV camera.
I saw the Today interview the morning after the crash and was amazed and
appalled and then it struck me. If she's so down on television, what the
hell is she doing on it, especially at a time that really should have been
spent in private. I wonder, did she or her children watch themselves?
Julie
Elizabeth A Esser
: Has anyone paused to consider that this was something that *Jessica* wanted
: to do, not just her parents? While I'll readily admit that parents obviously
: have a great amount of influence on someone so young, it's also quite
: possible that Jessica was the precocious type who insisted on being the best
: and desperately wanted to be the youngest person ever to fly across the
: globe.
Did anyone see the interview with Jessica on CNN before she took off from
Wyoming? This kid was *not* a particularly self-possessed or mature
kid. Now, I'm not saying that anyone, much less a 7 year old, always
seems confident and articulate in front of the press. But Jessica didn't
even seem to be able to articulate why she liked to fly, much less why
she wanted to break the record. The reporter asked her, "Why do you like
flying?" Jessica didin't seem to know how to respond, so the reporter
asked, "What was it like the first time you were in a plane?" She said,
"Well, it was like... flying... and... I kept doing it." "Why do you
want to break the record?" (pause) "DO you think you're going to break
the record?" "Yes!"
I don't relate this in order to criticize Jessica; she responded like a
pretty typical 7 year old. Not like someone who has the maturity, insight
or precocity to go to her parents and say, "Mom, dad, I love to fly, and
its very important to me to break the record and be the youngest person to
fly across North America." PUH-LEEZE! The parents were obviously the
ones who encouraged her to do this. Does anyone honestly believe that
this is some idea that she came up with herself??
I concur with the person (sorry, I forget who) who pointed out that for
people who don't let their kids watch TV, these folks seem pretty
media-hungry.
Liza
--
********************************************************************
Liza Esser <elizabe...@yale.edu> Save a tree: /\
http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~esser/ e-mail instead. /__\
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies ||
********************************************************************
Christopher C Stacy
Date: 18 Apr 1996 06:01:01 GMT
Has anyone paused to consider that this was something that *Jessica* wanted
to do, not just her parents?
Sure. In the interviews I watched on TV, when asked about her motivations
and desires, Jessica said that the stunt was her father's idea.
Marlene Blanshay
would not let her children watch TV, she can't turn away from a TV
camera.
I saw the Today interview the morning after the crash and was amazed
and
appalled and then it struck me. If she's so down on television, what
the
hell is she doing on it, especially at a time that really should
have been
spent in private. I wonder, did she or her children watch
themselves?
Julie
SOmeone sais earlier that this had nothing to do with the crash. I
disagree. It seems evident to me that Ms Dubroff definitely has a
screw loose. I agree- she seemed way to happy to get in front of a
camera. It was obviously the performance of her life. She wanted
jessica to bring her fame, and she did, even if it wasn't the way
she'd planned. Either way, this woman planned to bask in the glow of
fame, brought on by her daughter.
This sounds cold and cruel? Doesn't it, though.
Hamlet, Prince of the Danes
>I think the babyboomers are pushing their children to be little
>adults because they themselves never want to grow up.
Hey, they've got to have someone to take care of them in old age. :-)
Prince Hamlet
--
========================================================================
ham...@netcom.com Hic et Ubique!
Homepage: http://www.webcom.com/hamlet/welcome.html
James Deline
: I kept wondering why Jessica wasn't in school learning to read and
: write. Turns out loony-nird mom didn't ENROLL her. NO tv, no
You say that like it's a **bad** thing.
: children's books, but her own horse and airplane.
: I think the babyboomers are pushing their children to be little
: adults because they themselves never want to grow up.
I heard that Jessica was reading books **well** beyond her years, and
that she was sponsering an orphaned child in South America that she found
out about in the back of a magazine. She seemed to be very bright and
mature for her age, and very unselfish.
I would take a million kids like her over some of the brats I've seen.
Yeah, so the Mom is different, but her kids appear to be well-adjusted.
Please don't fault a parent because they decide not to subject their
children to the American education system.
jd
David Rebbettes
>
> I kept wondering why Jessica wasn't in school learning to read and
> write. Turns out loony-nird mom didn't ENROLL her. NO tv, no
>
> I think the babyboomers are pushing their children to be little
> adults because they themselves never want to grow up.
Hey, What is this the Ricky Lake Show?
Let's Just get back to reality. Three people were killed in a light
aircraft accident. The Pilot In Command was a highly qualified high
time Pilot with an Instructors rating.
This experienced Pilot took of overweight from a high altitude airport
in deteriorating marginal VFR conditions.
We can speculate till the cows come home about what information and
forecasts the PIC had and took notice of. Personally I will wait for
the result of an enquiry before I get in to character asassination.
What the parents child rearing philosophy/religion/value
system/appearance/ or anything else is not a factor in whether the PIC
did his/her job correctly.
I have seen parents push there kids a hell of a lot harder than the
Dubroffs pushed Jessica. Look at some of the Oylmpic Gymnasts for
instance have a hell of a life from a very young age with training
schedules that, in my view, border on child abuse. Other kids are
forced in to religious cults whilst still others are bumped off to
boarding School at seven years of age.
Not that I support any of these particularly. The Dubroff's certainly
do not appear to have main stream values, but that is their right in a
democracy. They have broken no laws. Who are we to question their
lifestyle.
What bothers me is that Aviation needed this like a hole in the head.
Why are we getting in the debate about parenting styles when the only
professional aviator in the piece is responsible for the whole sorry
affair. If it was innapropriate to do this trip then that is what the
PIC should have advised.
It is bad enough seeing the press whip the non aviation public in to a
frenzy without seeing Aviation News Group Postings referring to these
people as ageing New age ex-hippies.
I am sad that my friends here in Australia who have always raised their
eyebrows when I take my eight year old daughter flying now believe they
have a legitimate case against me.
Lets face it, the public perception of flying is that it is dangerous.
My non flying friends think that I am recklessly endangering my
daughters life, particularly if she has her hands on the controls of my
172 for a while.
Every time we get any sort of small aeroplane accident here we get
sensationalist headlines written and presented by non flying
journalists. We do not need more regulations at the request of a lynch
mob of horrified non aviators. We need to use appropriate judgement in
exercising the privilage of our Pilots Licence.
Flying in to bad weather and fuel management are the things that kill
pilots in Australia. Each case I have ever read about seems avoidable.
However if you earn your living as a Pilot and you are PIC you make
these decisions and hopefully have an uneventful flight. The issue here
is that as PIC and Captain you undertake all operational responsiblity.
Personally I wouldnt let my daughter fly across Australia on such a
venture, neither would I force her to attend Church, become a Gymnast or
send her to boarding School. However I respect the right of other
parents to disagree with me.
To sum up, lets leave the Dubroff's alone and get on with the real
issues of patching up the damage, the public perception of this tragedy
has created. In my case I am in Australia and it is still news here a
week later.
=====================================================
If you make a few ridiculous assumptions
Every Thing that I say makes perfect Sense....
===============================================================
David Rebbettes User Advisor Email: creb...@cc.curtin.edu.au
User Services Telephone (+619) 351 3200
Curtin University, Fax (+619) 351 2673
Perth, Western Australia
===============================================================
boo...@netcom.com
Not only that, but the father admitted when he asked Jessica
if she'd like to fly across the country, she didn't answer him.
He said he'd give her time to think about it.
Clearly, the child wanted to please her parents, and her 'joy'
came from all the attention she was getting from them and everyone
else, not from the act of flying the airplane.
Flying is booooring, except for take-off and landing. And it's
no great surprise that when the hoopla died down and they were
up there just flying, she got too sleepy to fly and the instructor
took over.
--
boo...@netcom.com Memory believes before knowing remembers
- Faulkner
Barbara MacRae
[...]
>I concur with the person (sorry, I forget who) who pointed out that for
>people who don't let their kids watch TV, these folks seem pretty
>media-hungry.
I've known a lot of people who were raising their kids 'outside
the system', (some well, some not). One thing I've noticed is that
it's not uncommon for these parents to really push the kids, not
just to succeed, but to excel. I think it's a way of validating
their own decision not to go with the flow, a way of proving to
the world, (and in this case, literally so) that they are doing
the right thing by homeschooling, living in a teepee in the
mountains, whatever. I have nothing against doing that stuff, but
I do have a problem with people who are using their kids to prove
something about themselves.
-Barb
Thomas K. Dibenedetto
: Let's Just get back to reality.
: We can speculate till the cows come home about what information and
: forecasts the PIC had and took notice of. Personally I will wait for
: the result of an enquiry before I get in to character asassination.
: Lets face it, the public perception of flying is that it is dangerous.
: My non flying friends think that I am recklessly endangering my
: daughters life, particularly if she has her hands on the controls of my
: 172 for a while.
: Personally I wouldnt let my daughter fly across Australia on such a
: venture, neither would I force her to attend Church, become a Gymnast or
: send her to boarding School. However I respect the right of other
: parents to disagree with me.
: To sum up, lets leave the Dubroff's alone and get on with the real
: issues of patching up the damage, the public perception of this tragedy
: has created. In my case I am in Australia and it is still news here a
: week later.
well said Dave, I 've been searching for the right way to sum up my
feelings, and respond to some of the idiots posting here lately; I think
you captured my feelings just right.
now lets get back to aviation!
-Tom
The Koch Family
Bielak) wrote:
> In article <317548...@vir.com>, Marlene Blanshay <blan...@vir.com>
wrote:
> >I kept wondering why Jessica wasn't in school learning to read and
> >write. Turns out loony-nird mom didn't ENROLL her. NO tv, no
> >children's books, but her own horse and airplane.
>
> I don't know. Not TV, instead horses and airplanes. Doesn't sound so
> bad too me. Try watching Saturday morning cartoons and the commercials
> sometime...
>
> In any case, this had nothing to do with the crash. Unfortunately the
> CFI messed up...
>
> ...richie
Marlene Blanshay and richie
I also am not enrolled in a school. I know aprox, 100 other children who
are also not going to school. in Pennsylvania alone there are 12,000
families who don't have there children in school.
We are called HOMESCHOOLERS.
Jessica Dubroff was also homeschooled.
I am 16 years old, and would not have had the opportunity to learn to fly
if I was in school, because of time restrictions. as it is, I can fly any
time I have enough money to rent the AC.
Andrew Koch
Mike Cohen
(Elizabeth A Esser) wrote:
>
>Did anyone see the interview with Jessica on CNN before she took off from
>Wyoming? This kid was *not* a particularly self-possessed or mature
>kid. Now, I'm not saying that anyone, much less a 7 year old, always
>seems confident and articulate in front of the press. But Jessica didn't
>even seem to be able to articulate why she liked to fly, much less why
>she wanted to break the record. The reporter asked her, "Why do you like
>flying?" Jessica didin't seem to know how to respond, so the reporter
>asked, "What was it like the first time you were in a plane?" She said,
>"Well, it was like... flying... and... I kept doing it." "Why do you
>want to break the record?" (pause) "DO you think you're going to break
>the record?" "Yes!"
>
The night before, she was all over the KTWO (NBC affiliate in Casper)
news. They showed her meeting the mayor of Cheyenne. It was the biggest
news here. We saw the story first thing the next morning in the Star
Tribune <http://www.trib.com/>.
--
Mike Cohen - is...@isis-intl.com - http://www.isis-intl.com/
Sound is the same for all the world - Youssou N'dour, "Eyes Open"
Robert Matthews
> My two cents on the Jessica tragedy...
>
> Has anyone paused to consider that this was something that *Jessica* wanted
> to do, not just her parents? While I'll readily admit that parents obviously
> have a great amount of influence on someone so young, it's also quite
> possible that Jessica was the precocious type who insisted on being the best
> and desperately wanted to be the youngest person ever to fly across the
> globe.
What Jessica wanted was completely immaterial. A great many children
want to stay up until three a.m., eat nothing but candy, watch television
twelve to fourteen hours a day, smoke, and do any number of other things
that aren't good for them. It used to be the case, not so long ago, that
parents had the responsibility to bring children up and to make the wee
ones do things that they didn't want to do (but that were good for them)
and prevent them from doing things they did want to do (but that were bad
for them). Those days appear to be gone.
The mere fact that Jessica was majorly precocious is irrelevant. She
wasn't mature enough to be flying a plane--now *there's* an
understatement--and her parents had no business permitting her to do so.
Since they were too stupid to have prevented her from undertaking to fly
across the U.S., the law should have stepped in; but it too failed, and as
a result, three insufficiently intelligent people are dead, and it's a
mercy it wasn't more, but at least the three deceased won't be passing on
their sub-standard genetic material to another generation.
Jessica's death is not a tragedy in any meaningful sense of the word.
What it is, is a hideous object lesson which proves that however much
society ought to be able to count on the ability of parents to raise their
children properly, there are a great many who are not mentally capable of
such a serious task.
> 7 year olds may be ignorant and immature regarding certain matters,
> but they aren't stupid. While I don't have kids, I have an 11-year old
> brother as a reference point, so I know what kids Jessica's age tend to act
> like.
Stupidity, ignorance and immaturity start looking perilously alike
after a point. Jessica was perhaps slightly more mature than your average
seven-year-old, and probably more so than her brainless parents; but in
any case she wasn't ready for the responsibility of piloting an airplane,
as the fatal crash clearly shows.
> Granted, a 7-year old isn't mature enough to be able to make the
> decision to fly an airplane 100% by herself, but to blame the parents -
> either of them - is to lay unnecessary harm on a family that will grief and
> regret this error in judgment (flying in clearly unsafe conditions, that is)
> for the rest of their lives. Losing a child is probably the worst thing that
> can happen to any rational human, and to add insult onto injury is callous.
Bosh. The parents are as culpable as if they had encouraged their
child to play on a busy freeway, and the surviving parent ought to be
charged with reckless endangerment of a minor.
> The mother may be a press manipulator out to score as many sympathy points as
> possible with the general public, but she's still a woman who lost a daughter
> and we can't forget what that must be doing to her. She might be in denial
> right now, but down the road she'll realize what she's missing and feel the
> full pain of this loss.
The loss over which she's theoretically feeling so much pain is
entirely her own fault. If it had not been for the complicity of the
parents, Jessica could never have undertaken the task for which she was so
completely unsuitable. The parents should have been wise enough to know
that an average seven-year-old can handle a bicycle, and an exceptional
one can probably manage a scaled-down motorized vehicle; but to fly an
airplane, and take into her own hands her life and those of her passengers
(not to mention those whose homes the plane barely avoided crashing into)?
There isn't a seven-year-old alive (nor a fourteen-year-old) on earth to
whom I'd entrust such an enormous responsibility. Thanks to the blinkered
ignorance of the parents, three people are dead--one of whom didn't know
enough not to try something she ought not to have, and two who should have
known better.
Robert Matthews
--
jim...@mi.net
"I never really understood the difference between a model and a supermodel.
The only way I can think of comparing it is like a Tampax and a Super Tampax.
The super variety is a bit more expensive and a lot thicker." --Jo Brand
J.W. Williams
......snip,.....clip,.....cut...........
( a whole bunch of GOOD stuff!)
Mr. Rebbettes:
OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
John Williams ; ATP CL600,DA20,CE500 ; CFIA/CFII/MEI
Houston, Texas
Marie Quick
writes:
>I also am not enrolled in a school. I know aprox, 100 other children
>who are also not going to school. in Pennsylvania alone there are
>12,000 families who don't have there children in school.
>We are called HOMESCHOOLERS. Jessica Dubroff was also homeschooled.
Actually, she wasn't being homeschooled, because her mother never filed
a home-schooling plan. She just didn't send her to school.
>Andrew Koch
Marie
Craig Smith
> > Has anyone paused to consider that this was something that *Jessica* wanted
> > to do, not just her parents? While I'll readily admit that parents obviously
> > have a great amount of influence on someone so young, it's also quite
> > possible that Jessica was the precocious type who insisted on being the best
> > and desperately wanted to be the youngest person ever to fly across the
> > globe.
>
> The mere fact that Jessica was majorly precocious is irrelevant. She
> wasn't mature enough to be flying a plane--now *there's* an
> understatement--and her parents had no business permitting her to do so.
> Since they were too stupid to have prevented her from undertaking to fly
> across the U.S., the law should have stepped in; but it too failed, and as
> a result, three insufficiently intelligent people are dead, and it's a
> mercy it wasn't more, but at least the three deceased won't be passing on
> their sub-standard genetic material to another generation.
>
> Jessica's death is not a tragedy in any meaningful sense of the word.
> What it is, is a hideous object lesson which proves that however much
> society ought to be able to count on the ability of parents to raise their
> children properly, there are a great many who are not mentally capable of
> such a serious task.
> > Granted, a 7-year old isn't mature enough to be able to make the
> > decision to fly an airplane 100% by herself, but to blame the parents -
> > either of them - is to lay unnecessary harm on a family that will grief and
> > regret this error in judgment (flying in clearly unsafe conditions, that is)
> > for the rest of their lives. Losing a child is probably the worst thing that
> > can happen to any rational human, and to add insult onto injury is callous.
>
> Bosh. The parents are as culpable as if they had encouraged their
> child to play on a busy freeway, and the surviving parent ought to be
> charged with reckless endangerment of a minor.
I heartily agree with you, Robert. It's one thing to encourage a
child's dreams and goals and desires. It's quite another to turn a
blind eye to obvious good sense.
Had she been flying as a co-pilot, with separate controls that the
principal pilot would have taken over the MOMENT there was anything
the least bit amiss, I could see letting her (if indeed it was
Jessica's ambition and not her parents') undertake such an
extraordinarily dangerous goal. But to allow a seven-year-old to be
the responsible person, the pilot actually in control of the plane, is
so absurd as to be incredible.
No, it's not absurd. It's criminal neglect, and lofty words, high
ideals and a mess of tears in front of the media doesn't diminish the
crime.
Craig
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Craig R. Smith, ASGTPR#23
(aka Olaf Mindrimmer, aka Maito Sewa Yoleme, aka El Milador de Milagros)
Official(!) ASG Welcome Wagon
Member, Anarchist Bitches with Dictionaries Coven (ASG chapter)
Ordained Minister, Universal Life Church
Falling Tits-Over-Teacups Into the Unknown Since 1955
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AliceGj
>Had she been flying as a co-pilot, with separate controls that the
>principal pilot would have taken over the MOMENT there was anything
>the least bit amiss, I could see letting her (if indeed it was
>Jessica's ambition and not her parents') undertake such an
>extraordinarily dangerous goal. But to allow a seven-year-old to be
>the responsible person, the pilot actually in control of the plane, is
>so absurd as to be incredible.
>No, it's not absurd. It's criminal neglect, and lofty words, high
>ideals and a mess of tears in front of the media doesn't diminish the
>crime.
Craig, the aircraft DID have dual controls; Jessica was NOT the pilot of
the
aircraft, and the instructor WAS the one totally responsible for the
safety
of the flight. He was sitting in the front right seat, a position from
which
the aircraft can be safely flown. This has been said OVER and OVER and
OVER. There is JUST no way that the crash can be blamed on any action of
Jessica.
Alice
Larry Stone
>Had she been flying as a co-pilot, with separate controls that the
>principal pilot would have taken over the MOMENT there was anything
>the least bit amiss, I could see letting her (if indeed it was
>Jessica's ambition and not her parents') undertake such an
>extraordinarily dangerous goal. But to allow a seven-year-old to be
>the responsible person, the pilot actually in control of the plane, is
>so absurd as to be incredible.
The plane did have dual controls. She was not co-pilot, "responsible
person", "pilot actually in control of the plane", or anything of the
sort. She was a passenger (not even a student pilot legally) receiving
instruction from a Cerificated Flight Instructor. The instructor was
"Pilot-In-Command" and did have controls in front of him.
--
-- Larry Stone --- lst...@interserve.com
Belmont, CA, USA
My opinions, not United's.
Larry J. Clark
>
> >I think the babyboomers are pushing their children to be little
> >adults because they themselves never want to grow up.
>
> Mom is an emotional fascist. She bullied her kids and it was
> clear she has no grip on reality.
>
> She said she thought "the weather would move aside because
> her daughter was a special person."
>
> Gimmie a fuckin' break.
>
> She obviously thought her kids were somehow immune to the
> laws of physics and nature.
>
> Where is the state of California in this? A social worker
> needs to visit that home. It seems these people had no clue
> about the real world. It just pisses me off. I wonder why
> she isn't the subject of an investigation.
>
> This is a humorless woman who seems to be bent on making a
> cult of her kids. Her kids were so special, so perfect that
> God had blessed them. Sure, and he cursed Ron Brown and 34
> other people a week before.
>
> The foolishness here is damn near criminal. If she sues the
> estate of the pilot, she should lose her fucking kids. If
> she tries to foist blame for this madness on anyone but
> herself, she's delusional.
>
> http://www.tiac.net/users/gilliard
>
> The Gilliard News
I don't know if this lady bullied her kids, but I sure like the
way she avoids all parental responsibility for Jessica's death.
NPR (Scott Simon?) opined that if her parents didn't actually
drive Jessica to this fatal occurence, they sure as heck drove
her to the airport.
This whole concept of kids "flying" cross country is stupid.
Parents who want to test you and your kid's resolve on these
idiotic ventures try this: Drive your youngster to the airport,
rent the plane, loan him/her your credit cards, make sure they've
packed clean underwear, charts, and a flight computer, and tell
them to give you a call when they get to the other coast. Then
drive home.
(I know you can't *really* get licensed that young, etc.)
If you don't think the kid has what it takes to do it solo, then
forget the window dressing of a dad and a flight instructor.
Jessica's Mom should be cited for endangering her child.
...And if the kid had been watching TV and playing with toys, she
might have grown old enough to get a pilot's AND a driver's license.
My $0.02.
Ken Shrum
<snip>
>Had she been flying as a co-pilot, with separate controls that the
>principal pilot would have taken over the MOMENT there was anything
>the least bit amiss, I could see letting her (if indeed it was
>Jessica's ambition and not her parents') undertake such an
>extraordinarily dangerous goal. But to allow a seven-year-old to be
>the responsible person, the pilot actually in control of the plane, is
>so absurd as to be incredible.
Have you guys been following this thread? The plane HAD dual
controls, as is the case with almost all general aviation aircraft.
She WAS NOT in any way the person responsible for the flight. The
instructor was COMPLETELY responsible for the safe operation of the
flight. I repeat: she was NOT the pilot, even if the media reported
it as such. The INSTRUCTOR is always Pilot-In-Command when flying
with someone who does not yet have their certificate.
Ken Shrum PP-ASEL
Annapolis, MD
Flying from Lee Airport (ANP)
RADWORDS1
wanted
to do, not just her parents? While I'll readily admit that parents
obviously
have a great amount of influence on someone so young, it's also quite
possible that Jessica was the precocious type who insisted on being the
best
and desperately wanted to be the youngest person ever to fly across the
matters,
but they aren't stupid. While I don't have kids, I have an 11-year old
brother as a reference point, so I know what kids Jessica's age tend to
act
like.<<<<<
Excuse me-our job as parents is to stop our children from doing brainless,
dangerous things. My sons are very imaginative & daily come up with all
kinds of things they *really* want to do. I weed out the ones that are
dangerous, stupid & unreasonable for children of their age. When I hear
that stupid woman talk about her daughter's beautiful death & I think of
how hideous her death actually was, I want to scream. If people want to
experiment on things, they ought to go to Toys R Us & buy a chemestry set.
You only get one chance with your children. Irresponsibility runs rampant
in this story. The child never had a chance.
~Danielle
broomstick
>Had she been flying as a co-pilot, with separate controls that the
>principal pilot would have taken over the MOMENT there was anything
Yo, buddy - you obviously have NEVER been inside a small plane like a Cessna
Cardinal. Dual controls are standard equipment. The flight instructor CAN
take over at a moment's notice, and in my flight training experience,
certainly did on numerous occassions.
The REAL mistake in this flight was taking off in weather no sane person would
fly small aircraft in. A seven year old can make such a go/no-go decision -
which is why adults are required to be with them. And in this case there were
two adults, one of which was a flight instructor, who both should have known
better than to risk their lives in such weather. Personally, I don't think it
MATTERS who was at the controls - once that plane took off in those conditions
the occupants were toast. Skill can not always oversome stupidity.
==============================================================================
>---Broomstick--- | YEE-HA!
==============================================================================
Ken Shrum
george lin
Thomas K. Dibenedetto <td...@umich.edu> wrote:
>RADWORDS1 (radw...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Excuse me-our job as parents is to stop our children from doing brainless,
>: dangerous things. My sons are very imaginative & daily come up with all
>: kinds of things they *really* want to do. I weed out the ones that are
>: dangerous, stupid & unreasonable for children of their age. When I hear
>: that stupid woman talk about her daughter's beautiful death & I think of
>: how hideous her death actually was, I want to scream. If people want to
>: experiment on things, they ought to go to Toys R Us & buy a chemestry set.
>: You only get one chance with your children. Irresponsibility runs rampant
>: in this story. The child never had a chance.
>: ~Danielle
>
>perhaps with a bit less creativity and imagination. The "default"
>upbringing has yielded countless generations of violent, unhappy,
>neurotic adults. My instincts are to support those who try to do better....
>In any case, its none of your business...
Sure, it's our business to speak out if we think something is wrong!
"countless generations" lived to adulthood because their parents
made decisions that they, as children, were not capable of making
sensibly. Various misguided people try "to do better" by dragging
their kids with them into the Branch Davidians, say, or to Jonestown.
Society is lost if we say blandly about everything we see, "It is
as valid as anything else."
--
********
All hope is lost
*******
Barbara MacRae
>
>I also am not enrolled in a school. I know aprox, 100 other children who
>are also not going to school. in Pennsylvania alone there are 12,000
>families who don't have there children in school.
>We are called HOMESCHOOLERS.
You are indeed enrolled in school, you just don't have your lessons
in a building specifically called "school".
>Jessica Dubroff was also homeschooled.
No, she wasn't. Her mother may *call* it that, but the law doesn't
recognize it as such. In the eyes of the school system and the law,
she was a truant.
-Barb
Thomas K. Dibenedetto
-=JR=-
> The loss over which she's theoretically feeling so much pain is
>entirely her own fault. If it had not been for the complicity of the
>parents, Jessica could never have undertaken the task for which she was so
>completely unsuitable. The parents should have been wise enough to know
>that an average seven-year-old can handle a bicycle, and an exceptional
>one can probably manage a scaled-down motorized vehicle; but to fly an
>airplane, and take into her own hands her life and those of her passengers
>(not to mention those whose homes the plane barely avoided crashing into)?
>There isn't a seven-year-old alive (nor a fourteen-year-old) on earth to
>whom I'd entrust such an enormous responsibility. Thanks to the blinkered
>ignorance of the parents, three people are dead--one of whom didn't know
>enough not to try something she ought not to have, and two who should have
>known better.
The really sad thing is that it was all a sham. Apparently Jessica
had taken a nap in the plane on the flight to Montana, and the CFI
had taken over the controls. So, she would not have been elligible
for any solo flight"title" even if she *had* finished the trip.
Wonder if *that* part would have even been mentioned, though?
Thomas K. Dibenedetto
: Sure, it's our business to speak out if we think something is wrong!
it is not your business to try to tell others how to live and raise their
family. why dont you get a life of your own, fool.
: Various misguided people try "to do better" by dragging
: their kids with them into the Branch Davidians, say, or to Jonestown.
and some succeed in doing better. i suppose you advocate a nice
homogenous, one-size-fits-all, off the shelf, childhood, and life that
everyone can follow. In fact, I bet you would like to impose that by law.
no thanks.
: Society is lost if we say blandly about everything we see, "It is
: as valid as anything else."
I certainly did not say that about your posts!
I am not saying that everything is equally "valid" (whatever that means).
I'm saying that neither you nor I nor the government (and certainly not
you) have the right to enforce any such judgement on the private life of
anyone else.
Have you not enough to worry about with your own life?
Atanu Dey
: In article <4l4lqt$r...@mari.onr.com>, kir...@onr.com (Jeff Kirk) wrote:
: What Jessica wanted was completely immaterial. A great many children
: want to stay up until three a.m., eat nothing but candy, watch television
: twelve to fourteen hours a day, smoke, and do any number of other things
: that aren't good for them. It used to be the case, not so long ago, that
: parents had the responsibility to bring children up and to make the wee
: ones do things that they didn't want to do (but that were good for them)
: and prevent them from doing things they did want to do (but that were bad
: for them). Those days appear to be gone.
< good stuff deleted >
Hear! Hear!
IMHO, you have said it all.
Atanu
Larry J. Clark
>
> I also am not enrolled in a school. I know aprox, 100 other children who
> are also not going to school. in Pennsylvania alone there are 12,000
> families who don't have there children in school.
> We are called HOMESCHOOLERS.
>
> if I was in school, because of time restrictions. as it is, I can fly any
> time I have enough money to rent the AC.
>
> Andrew Koch
Andrew:
I've nothing against homeschooling, but if you really believe that public
schooling would not have allowed you the time to get your pilot's license --
you either believe, or have been fed, a load of bunk.
There are thousands and thousands of pilots out there. Many of them are
less than 18 YOA. Where to you think 90-95% of them went/go to school?
Enjoy yourself. Keep flying. But don't swallow everything.
george lin
i suppose you advocate a nice
homogenous, one-size-fits-all, off the shelf, childhood, and life that
everyone can follow. In fact, I bet you would like to impose that by law.
no thanks."
--ah, building up a straw man. We in the newsgroup have freely
criticized Dubroff-style upbringing, but I challenge you to find that any
of us is pushing for new legislation or writing letters to the FBI to "get"
Mrs. Dubroff. Nice try, fool.
"Some" alternative parents do succeed in doing better,
which is to be commended.
But I reserve the right to call a duck a duck. For instance, Christian
Scientists have let their kids die by shirking proper treatment.
The child has been made to suffer in order to make
the adult feel righteous. Mrs. Dubroff is
guilty of this.
"I'm saying that neither you nor I nor the government
have the right to enforce any such judgement on the private life of
anyone else."
There is a difference between letting adults tinker
destructively with their own lives (be my guest)
and letting them tinker destructively with their children's.
"Have you not enough to worry about with your own life?"--Sure.
Snacker
OH PLEASE, Thomas.....
Violent, unhappy, neurotic kids come from abuse (physical or verbal)
and neglect. They aren't derivied from a parent who monitors the
activities of his or her child and weeds out the bad ones.
Jessica's father was obviously out to seek some glory for himslef and
used the little girl as a pawn.
You must be one of those people that never question why your neighbor's
kid has bruises on his/her face.......
Sam #13
Snacker
>
>In article <koch-19049...@ppp18.pgh.net> ko...@pgh.net (The
Koch Family) writes:
>>
>>I also am not enrolled in a school. I know aprox, 100 other children
who
>>are also not going to school. in Pennsylvania alone there are 12,000
>>families who don't have there children in school.
>>We are called HOMESCHOOLERS.
>
>You are indeed enrolled in school, you just don't have your lessons
>in a building specifically called "school".
>
>-Barb
>
At the risk of getting flamed by the Koch Family, you have used
incorrect possessive grammar. It should read "..don't have THEIR
children in school."
Perhaps you should reconsider this homeschooling thing, eh???
Sam #13
Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.....
boo...@netcom.com
Thomas K. Dibenedetto <td...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>: Excuse me-our job as parents is to stop our children from doing brainless,
>: dangerous things. My sons are very imaginative & daily come up with all
>: kinds of things they *really* want to do. I weed out the ones that are
>: dangerous, stupid & unreasonable for children of their age. When I hear
>: that stupid woman talk about her daughter's beautiful death & I think of
>: how hideous her death actually was, I want to scream. If people want to
>: experiment on things, they ought to go to Toys R Us & buy a chemestry set.
>: You only get one chance with your children. Irresponsibility runs rampant
>: in this story. The child never had a chance.
>: ~Danielle
>
>pure BS Danielle; you are experimenting as much as any other parent; except
>perhaps with a bit less creativity and imagination. The "default"
>upbringing has yielded countless generations of violent, unhappy,
>neurotic adults. My instincts are to support those who try to do better....
>In any case, its none of your business...
What is your definition of 'default' upbringing? And how, do you
argue, did it produce violent, unhappy, neurotic adults?
Familial dysfunction surely can create those things, but dysfunction
isn't what Danielle was advocating. Quite the opposite.
--
boo...@netcom.com Memory believes before knowing remembers
- Faulkner
Carolyn Poulter
>Craig, the aircraft DID have dual controls; Jessica was NOT the pilot of
>the aircraft, and the instructor WAS the one totally responsible for the
>safety of the flight. He was sitting in the front right seat, a position from which the aircraft can be safely flown. This has bee=
n said OVER and OVER and OVER. There is JUST no way that the crash can be blamed on any action of Jessica.
> Alice
I don't think anyone is blaming the child...I think all agree that the
parents and the flight instructor had complete control of the situation
but I think it is entirely possible that given the publicity (and
therefore the attendant pressure) that they (the adults) got caught
up in the moment and pehaps made bad judgements. The point is still
though, that the adults in this case are having (even posthumously)
their fifteen minutes of fame because of their association with the
child...and the child did not get to choose. In the big picture this
is a tiny incident...every day drunk fathers and mothers drive with
their kids in the car....or others are the unwitting (or witting)
cause of a child's death or injury.....every day - to use a slightly
crude but true statement - shit happens. I think in this case what
has upset people is the apparent manipulation of events - both before
and after the crash - by the adults. The child was just a prop
in the movie....sadly.
I think we are all upset because we still hope and believe that we
(adults/parents/society) would not stoop so low...(even though we know
we are all capable of that kind of behaviour)....just to get a 10 second
slot before the weather on Good Morning America (please insert equivelent
newshow here ).
I can see why the various cross posted aviation groups are horrified
by all this....overall it is safer to let your seven year old fly
a lane for a while than it is to send her across the street for an
icecream and it creates a distorted picture. But I really don't
think this incident has anything to do with flying......it could have
been elephant riding or.......downhill-turtle-racing...it had to do with
adults dreams and a tool to do the job (the child).
just my tuppence worth.
Flames accepted with good grace.
--
Carolyn Poulter Disclaimer:- I am not an expert on any subject
except nagging my husband and kids and they ignore me anyway!
ArcherGuy
> I heartily agree with you, Robert. It's one thing to encourage a
> child's dreams and goals and desires. It's quite another to turn a
> blind eye to obvious good sense.
>
> Had she been flying as a co-pilot, with separate controls that the
> principal pilot would have taken over the MOMENT there was anything
> the least bit amiss, I could see letting her (if indeed it was
> Jessica's ambition and not her parents') undertake such an
> extraordinarily dangerous goal. But to allow a seven-year-old to be
> the responsible person, the pilot actually in control of the plane, is
> so absurd as to be incredible.
This is EXACTLY the case! There WERE SEPARATE CONTROLS! The Flight
Instructor WAS PILOT IN COMMAND! The PILOT IN COMMAND WAS FLYING THE
PLANE!
The posts for the last week and a half emphasized this point hundreds of
times over! Jessica had absolutely NO REPSONSIBILITY FOR THE FLIGHT
WHATSOEVER!
You sound as stupid as Jessica's father.
Frank
har...@ibm.net
>In article <4l5s5c$5...@news.ycc.yale.edu> es...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Elizabeth A Esser) writes:
>[...]
>>I concur with the person (sorry, I forget who) who pointed out that for
>>people who don't let their kids watch TV, these folks seem pretty
>>media-hungry.
>
>I've known a lot of people who were raising their kids 'outside
>the system', (some well, some not). One thing I've noticed is that
>it's not uncommon for these parents to really push the kids, not
>just to succeed, but to excel. I think it's a way of validating
>their own decision not to go with the flow, a way of proving to
>the world, (and in this case, literally so) that they are doing
>the right thing by homeschooling, living in a teepee in the
>mountains, whatever. I have nothing against doing that stuff, but
>I do have a problem with people who are using their kids to prove
>something about themselves.
>
>-Barb
>
With greatest sincerity: Lucky, lucky Olivia.
William Lorimer
<apou...@mail.MTS.Net> wrote:
> I don't think anyone is blaming the child...I think all agree that the
> parents and the flight instructor had complete control of the situation
> but I think it is entirely possible that given the publicity (and
> therefore the attendant pressure) that they (the adults) got caught
> up in the moment and pehaps made bad judgements.
To be really crude about it, Carolyn - I don't give a flying f***. The
instructor had a legal and moral responsibility not to take off in
conditions that exceeded his own - not just Jessica's - flying ability. He
had the responsibility never to let the flight get into a situation that
his student couldn't handle; instead, he made at least half a dozen
unbelievably stupid - and I mean STUPID - mistakes. And for what? Because
he couldn't bear to disappoint some TV reporters?
It was his job to override his student's judgement when necessary; it was
his job to prevent the student from getting in over her head; it was his
job to know about the possibility of freezing rain and/or thunderstorms;
it was his job to know about the hazards of density altitude; it was his
job to make sure the plane was properly loaded; and it was his job to say
"Sorry, Jessica, we can't make it out today. Let's go back to the hotel
and catch up on your sleep." Bad judgements? Criminal negligence would be
a more accurate description.
And what really ticks pilots off is that, in some sense, people who don't
know any better *are* blaming Jessica, at least in the sense that they
think her age or size was a contributing factor in the accident. There was
absolutely *nothing* that Jessica could have done in that plane that the
instructor couldn't have corrected in plenty of time - if he'd been doing
his job. Yet Time magazine pointed the finger everywhere *except* at the
instructor. They even made the ludicrous statement that "Reid (the
instructor) certainly could have (maneuvered out of the storm)", which is
pure fantasy.
--
WR Lorimer
Only a fool would start a fight that he knows he's going to lose.
Only a coward would start a fight that he knows he's going to win.
(PGP Key 0xF95EC559 available fm server)
(SASE PKey: Insert CR here =>>-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQBPAi9cijQAAAECALSFq5JN7Hl/rXQHsGxcNTxkTzBAfZJ8Td++4pM6Om1J48Rt
JvsTQh3zXtukkOatqm5gJxHHICPCPDc+UKve9BUAEQEAAbQmNTEyIFdSTCAod2ls
bC5sb3JpbWVyQGNhbmFkYS5jZGV2LmNvbSk=
=HCy/
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
(Standard Disclaimer applies.)
William Lorimer
> The mere fact that Jessica was majorly precocious is irrelevant. She
> wasn't mature enough to be flying a plane--now *there's* an
> understatement--and her parents had no business permitting her to do so.
> Since they were too stupid to have prevented her from undertaking to fly
> across the U.S., the law should have stepped in; but it too failed,
<Sigh> Jessica was not - I repeat, WAS NOT - flying the plane. As such,
her maturity, or lack of it, was never a factor. The instructor should
have put his foot down; had he refused to fly, Jessica would have had no
choice but to stay on the ground.
> Jessica could never have undertaken the task for which she was so
> completely unsuitable. The parents should have been wise enough to know
> that an average seven-year-old can handle a bicycle, and an exceptional
> one can probably manage a scaled-down motorized vehicle; but to fly an
> airplane, and take into her own hands her life and those of her passengers
Again, this shows complete ignorance of what goes on in an airplane.
Nothing Jessica did could have caused the plane to crash, if the
instructor had been doing his job. I emphasize: !!if the instructor had
been doing his job!!
I seriously doubt that Jessica was even touching the controls when the
plane entered its fatal spin; if she was, then it was just one more stupid
mistake to add to the half-dozen or so the instructor had already made.
The lives of the "passengers" were never in Jessica's hands, since one of
those "passengers" was in fact the legal pilot. It was the other way
around - Jessica's life was in his hands.
> There isn't a seven-year-old alive (nor a fourteen-year-old) on earth to
> whom I'd entrust such an enormous responsibility.
Bullshit. Fourteen year-olds can legally solo an ultralight aircraft or a
glider in Canada, with the approval of their instructor (who must, among
other things, check the weather conditions and double-check the student's
weight-and-balance calculations before allowing the student to go solo).
There was *zero* responsibility on Jessica's part. *None* of the decisions
were legally hers to make, and nothing she did could have been done
without the instructor's consent. Jessica had no more responsibility for
the safe conduct of the trip than she would have had if her father had
taken her on a camping trip or a skiing vacation.
Children Jessica's age have been manipulating the controls of aircraft
probably since the first barnstormers started taking them up for a nickel
a ride. The reason most non-pilots don't know this is because it almost
never results in a news story.
Jeff Randall
>jim...@mi.net (Robert Matthews) wrote:
>> There isn't a seven-year-old alive (nor a fourteen-year-old) on earth to
>> whom I'd entrust such an enormous responsibility.
>
>Bullshit. Fourteen year-olds can legally solo an ultralight aircraft or a
>glider in Canada, with the approval of their instructor (who must, among
>other things, check the weather conditions and double-check the student's
>weight-and-balance calculations before allowing the student to go solo).
In the US, 14 year olds are not allowed to solo a 65hp trike gear C152
but they are allowed to solo a 100hp taildragger Grobe 109 motor-glider
because the C152 is an Airplane and the G109 is a Glider.
Look it up in part 61. (BTW, the proposed part 61 re-write closes this
"loophole")
CP-ASEL/MEL-IA AGI,CFI-AIM
--
ran...@truth.uph.com | George Orwell was an optimist:
I speak for myself... | "The Constitution is a radical document...it is the
until they destroy the | job of the Government to rein in people's rights."
1st Amendment as well. | -President Bill Clinton
Dimarcrj
different than most. Yes, I think Jessica should have been enrolled
in school. Yes, I think she was too young to begin flying (although,
let's be serious here - just how much actual flying do we all really
think she did, anyway?). The problem lies with her father and CFI.
Let's face it, if those too jackasses correctly decided not to take off
into those conditions (while allegedly overweight?), this thread would
have 0 instead of 45 posts.
Ray DiMarcello
dima...@aol.com
Harlo Peterson
Chuckle. No, I expect Craig is very smart and knowledgeable. To bad we couldn't see
Craig when he wrote his note. I expect we would see a pixish smile on his face. Craig
does have a good idea though. I suggest we propose that there be a regulation that
requires what he states to be a safe way to have non-pilots manipulate the controls.
This would keep everyone happy. Non-pilots would think something had been done to solve
their perception of the problem. Pilots would see that nothing has been changed from
current regulations and that nothing has really changed. A good win-win solutions. :-)
--
Harlo Peterson Digital Equipment Corporation
pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd South (CXO3-1/E9)
+1.719.592.5124 Colorado Springs, CO 80919-2398
William Dodd
over the processions. Apparently she wanted to lose
that kid as well. Here is a woman who ought to be
awarded the "Susan Smith Mother of the Year Award."
-Drew.
AliceGj
>to fly in that weather, she is the pilot in command and she is the last
>word whether or not that plane is going to leave the tarmac. No, I
>disagree. Jessica made a bad judgement call and that can be blamed on
>her.
>Brian
I AM repeating myself. Jessica was NOT the pilot-in-command. The
instructor
was and was the sole person responsible for the safety of the flight. The
flight
instructor KNEW that he was pilot-in-command. (This is pretty basic
regulation stuff -- FAR Part 61 that even student pilots are required to
know.)
Brian, with all due respect, your above statement simply is not true. I
also find
it a bit hard to believe that Jessica might have overriden a decision by
the
instructor to not go due to weather.
Alice
M & L Abrams
>
>
> it is not your business to try to tell others how to live and raise their
> family. why dont you get a life of your own, fool.
>
(I clipped the rest since it was by turns rude, illsaid, and
off the point)
You're missing many of the points that poster brought up,
and your rudeness just makes YOU look foolish. Have the
maturity to have a reasoned discussion rather then childish
ooutbursts.
Norman Desmond
So, according to the pharisees of this morally uplifting "gossip" group,
Jessica was allowed to do whatever she wanted but at the same time was brought
up in a medieval manner as a little adult who was not given toys, allowed to
watch tv, read childrens books, etc. Oh, for a little consistency!
Jerry Bransford
Norman, I'm not sure that what you say holds any water with me. Can you
offer actual quotes where anyone in this newsgroup actually said Jessica
was "brought up in a medieval manner as a little adult who was not given
toys, allowed to watch tv, read childrens books, etc"?
Saying "well, that's what you all implied" won't cut it with me. By the
way, I'm not sure that not allowing a child to watch tv is all that bad,
though I do allow it personally on a limited basis.
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL, KC6TAY, C.A.P.
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
PTH
country with their parents and the get to "fly" the airplane for a while.
They do not claim to be the sole manipulator of the controls or try to set a
"record. Jessica was a passenger and probably pretty good for her age but
certainly was not the pilot in command. Being a pilot is more than steering
the airplane. Did she understand weight and balance and compute this prior to
the flight? I understand that the instructor did some of the flying and
executed the first landing so the attempt to do her thing was not a success.
She was the victim of poor adult decisions. With 50 years of VFR and IFR
experience I doubt I would have taken off under the weather and wind
condition that they attempted.
Argus newsroom
condolences to Jessic Dubroff's family. Anybody have her mother's address
or a contact when can get ahold of?
Thanks.
Kaiju
>My two cents on the Jessica tragedy...
>Has anyone paused to consider that this was something that *Jessica* wanted
>to do, not just her parents? While I'll readily admit that parents obviously
>
Hello? Isn't it about time people got a grip on this subject?
My 13 year old son likes to run his remote controlled cars on a semi-busy
street...while he stands out there with them. I don't let him. Not any more than
I'd let him play in traffic for any reason.
My 14 year old daughter would desperately like to date 20+ year old men. I don't let
her. In fact, I keep her locked up indoors, I monitor her phone calls, and she
doesn't leave the house without an escort of my choosing! She may not like it, but
if she wants to eat, have a closet full of expensive clothes, every electronic toy
imaginable, a private school education, etc., and have a nice place to sleep, this is
reality for her. When she demonstrates maturity in judgement, I'll loosen my control
over her activities. She is finally getting the point....maybe. She does know that
she is loved unconditionally, however.
Am I limiting my children? In most things no. In some things, you're damned right!
If my children wanted to learn to fly, I'd let them. (They haven't asked. As such,
I don't suggest it, either. The closest we've gotten is my son likes to drive
miniature race cars on tracks. I support him in that.) Would I let them fly across
country in winter, with unsettled weather? No way! Records be damned. Their
"choices" in this matter wouldn't be a consideration. I, as the parent, make those
judgement calls.
Ms. Hathaway doesn't seem to understand that parents are supposed to protect and
guide their children, while supporting them in their dreams and aspirations. There
is a balance to be met there. When my children are grown, I have no more say in
their choices. I'd have done all I can to give them a good life and a basis to make
good decisions for themselves. Until then, you'd better believe that I do have the
responsibility to guide and support them...and I DO! But that Ms. Hathaway could
ever comprehend that concept. Since she doesn't now, and doesn't seem inclined to
ever...my sympathy for her is limited.
Kaiju <completely unrepenetant...it's called parental responsibility and judgement>
Peter
<SNIP>
>My 14 year old daughter would desperately like to date 20+ year old men. I don't let
>her. In fact, I keep her locked up indoors, I monitor her phone calls, and she
>doesn't leave the house without an escort of my choosing! She may not like it, but
>if she wants to eat, have a closet full of expensive clothes, every electronic toy
>imaginable, a private school education, etc., and have a nice place to sleep, this is
>reality for her. When she demonstrates maturity in judgement, I'll loosen my control
>over her activities. She is finally getting the point....maybe. She does know that
>she is loved unconditionally, however.
>
>Am I limiting my children? In most things no. In some things, you're damned right!
>
>If my children wanted to learn to fly, I'd let them. (They haven't asked. As such,
>I don't suggest it, either. The closest we've gotten is my son likes to drive
>miniature race cars on tracks. I support him in that.) Would I let them fly across
>country in winter, with unsettled weather? No way! Records be damned. Their
>"choices" in this matter wouldn't be a consideration. I, as the parent, make those
>judgement calls.
>
>
>
>Kaiju <completely unrepenetant...it's called parental responsibility and judgement>
>
Well - I would guess you would not be a very good candidate for a flight instructor
certificate. . . as a father of three daughters, I will be a trifle surprised if the
fears you have about your daughters dating habits are not going to come true. Control of
the immediate does not guarantee results.
A flight instructor tries to lay the foundation for good judgement in a student, (like
some parents do) and then let the student trty - either succeeding or failing, or
somewhere in between - the instructors job is not to prevent the trying, but to keep the
trying from becoming fatal.
If you have been following the **MANY** threads on the Dubroff incident, you might have
learned that the child was a passenger, not a pilot, who was allowed to manipulate the
controls. The pilot (a flight instructor certificated by the FAA) was responsable for
teh flight in a legal as well as moral sense. Jesica was a victim.
And yes - **my** personal **judgement** is that the father and mother contributed to teh
chain of poor decisions and share the responsability.
- peter
Joe Hegedus
>
>The Koch Family wrote:
>>
>> I also am not enrolled in a school. I know aprox, 100 other children who
>> are also not going to school. in Pennsylvania alone there are 12,000
>> families who don't have there children in school.
>> We are called HOMESCHOOLERS.
>>
>> I am 16 years old, and would not have had the opportunity to learn to fly
>> if I was in school, because of time restrictions. as it is, I can fly any
>> time I have enough money to rent the AC.
>>
>> Andrew Koch
>
>Andrew:
>
>I've nothing against homeschooling, but if you really believe that public
>schooling would not have allowed you the time to get your pilot's license --
>you either believe, or have been fed, a load of bunk.
>
>There are thousands and thousands of pilots out there. Many of them are
>less than 18 YOA. Where to you think 90-95% of them went/go to school?
>
>Enjoy yourself. Keep flying. But don't swallow everything.
Andrew, He's right. I was a public school student, and still had plenty of time
to learn to fly, in addition to the usual school activities. I earned my private
certificate on my 17th birthday, when I was a High School Senior.
R. Morris
considering trying get current again.
Does anyone have any suggestions on FBO's/instructors to use or not use
aroumd the Washington DC area ... especially the Northern Virginia
airports (Leesburg, Manassas ...)?
I think I am leaning toward using a 172RG.
R. Morris
fly a plane.
I asked him if he thought that Jessica drove the car that brought her to
the airport.
He told me, "Of course not. That would be unsafe!"
(point, set, and match: my favor)
DaveB
Kaiju wrote:
>
[snip, of some excellent material}
> Ms. Hathaway doesn't seem to understand that parents are supposed to _protect_ and
> _guide_ their children, while supporting them in their dreams and aspirations. There
> is a balance to be met there.
[small snip}
> Kaiju <completely unrepenetant...it's called _parental responsibility and judgement_>
(some emphasis added)
Best post yet on this sad subject.
Dave B in Houston
Yet Another Steve
wrote:
That's true; the thread wouldn't have been started until a year or so later,
when some five-year-old got pushed into the cockpit to break Jessica's
record and got killed along the way. As long as there are parents out
there determined to have THEIR child be the "youngest ever to ...", this
kind of thing is going to happen.
Steve
warden
In article <4ljs1g$2g...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
dd...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU says...
mother should be checked out for post traumatic grief.
Larry Warden
Jon Thackray
Well I disagree. Imagine a car with dual controls, including the
steering, and a seven year old who had spent some time driving this
car in a controlled environment with no other cars present, and
imagine that there were no other cars or pedestrians or other moving
obstacles on the way to the airport. Would that still be unsafe, given
a driving instructor sitting at the second set of controls? I doubt
it. On the other hand, would you let the seven year old take the car
on her own into town? No, you wouldn't, that would be unsafe as she
doesn't have the judgement skills. The situation in the flight did not
require any exercise of judgement from the seven year old, but a lot
from the PIC. He was under pressure he wasn't ordinarily subjected to
(ie media wanting a story) and failed to apply his own go/no-go
criteria in this case. Had the situation been the same, except that
the passengers been a student who wanted to go to the given
destination, he would in all probability have given him a lecture
about one's own limits as regard weather etc, and sent him off on the
train. The extra pressures caused him to make a bad decision, in fact
probably several bad decisions. We all do it from time to time under
the right (or wrong, depending on you point of view) circumstances.
Read the "I learned about flying from that" articles in Pilot magazine
for numerous examples of people who have made bad decisions or got
into difficulty for some other reason and have then had the courage to
admit it so the rest of us can learn.
As for the legislation proposed, I think it's pointless. Anyone
determined to do something like this would simply admit it after the
fact, by which time the media adulation for the exercise of something
which should be a right but which had been removed would make it
impossible for any prosecution to take place anyway. It's very hard to
prosecute anyone for doing something which actually causes no harm and
makes them look like a hero/pioneer, especially in the "land of the
free":-) Can you imagine a jury sending someone down for successfully
breaking such a piece of legislation? Maybe in the UK, where the
legilsature would mysterously discover the case to be too complex for
a jury, but not in the US I suspect. The bottom line is that
unenforcable law is bad law, and this proposed one certainly has that
property.
--
Dr. Jon Thackray jo...@harlqn.co.uk 44 1223 872522 (voice)
Harlequin Ltd. 44 1223 872519 (fax)
Barrington Hall
Barrington
Cambridge CB2 5RG
England
Thomas K. Dibenedetto
warden (war...@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: What a senseless tragedy and now she wants her son to fly too? The
Whats wrong with the son flying? IF the girl had died in a car crash,
should they have refused to drive to the funeral?
Brian Decker
I'm currently taking PP lessons at Av-Ed Flight School, located at
Leesburg Airport, and am quite satisfied with the level of instruction I
am receiving. After looking around I decided on taking the lessons
there primarily because JYO is uncontrolled, so I spend more time
learning than waiting for clearance.
They have a 14-15 aircraft fleet, including I believe two 172RGs, at
least 5-6 172s, 2 152s, and a number of Pipers.
The instructors are professional, most have graduated from Embry-Riddle,
and quite thorough, as well as being personable.
You can call them at 703.777.9252 for more info if you like.
--
-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.- --- ----
Brian D. Decker bde...@melpar.esys.com
Don't examine a folly too closely. Just ask yourself what it
accomplishes
- Ayn Rand
Wallace Venable
>> Jessica's mom wanted her nine year old son to fly
>> over the processions.
>>
>What a senseless tragedy and now she wants her son to fly too?
Why not? It is no more dangerous for him than it should have been
for her, it is a question of doing it properly. Nothing is risk free.
Sick joke: Well, at least he will have a different flight
instructor.
Bonnie Madre
In article <4lm3mq$n...@gateway.ecn.com>, ka...@ecn.com (Kaiju) writes:
|> Hello? Isn't it about time people got a grip on this subject?
|>
|><completely unrepenetant...it's called parental responsibility and judgement>
AMEN! Life is full of tradeoffs, and it's better for children to learn
this from people who love them, than from a "beautiful death" at age 7.
--
Bonnie Madre
Staff Computer Scientist
Accelerator Controls Software Group
ANALOG ADDRESS:
The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF)
MS 85A
12000 Jefferson Avenue
Newport News, VA 23606
(804) 249-7059
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
ma...@cebaf.gov
John R. Johnson
On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, R. Morris wrote:
> I was talking to a friend who thought that it was ok for a 7-year old to
> fly a plane.
>
> I asked him if he thought that Jessica drove the car that brought her to
> the airport.
>
> He told me, "Of course not. That would be unsafe!"
>
> (point, set, and match: my favor)
What makes you think that! You clearly do not have any idea of the safety
involved in letting a youngster manipulate one set of controls of an
airplane. I agree with your friend, I would never dream of letting my
grandchildren drive to the airport. They can't drive, legally or otherwise.
However, EVERY CHILD WHO GETS IN MY AIRPLANE get to manipulate the controls
if they want to. THIS IS PERFECTLY SAFE. There is nothing that they can
do with those controls that could put us or the airplane in ANY DANGER.
NOTHING.
That is NOT true for the car.
Point, set, and match ! you just lost ALL of your credibility.
John
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
William Dodd (dd...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
: Jessica's mom wanted her nine year old son to fly
: over the processions. Apparently she wanted to lose
: that kid as well.
I doubt she wanted to lose Jessica.
: Here is a woman who ought to be
: awarded the "Susan Smith Mother of the Year Award."
I find your statements cruel, ignorant, and insulting.
There is a difference between sending a little girl up in an
airplane with a *Certified* *Flight* *Instructor* and
driving two infants into a river while bound in their car
seats.
Do you know what that difference is?
--
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Jerry Bransford
Very nice response to a really sick posting, Donn, I totally agree with
you! And that's after I've said that her parents deserve the *real*
blame for her fatal crash, though the CFI was directly responsible for
the *actual* crash.
Christopher John Markle
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com () writes:
>William Dodd (dd...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
>: Jessica's mom wanted her nine year old son to fly
>: over the processions. Apparently she wanted to lose
>: that kid as well.
>I doubt she wanted to lose Jessica.
>: Here is a woman who ought to be
>: awarded the "Susan Smith Mother of the Year Award."
>I find your statements cruel, ignorant, and insulting.
>There is a difference between sending a little girl up in an
>airplane with a *Certified* *Flight* *Instructor* and
>driving two infants into a river while bound in their car
>seats.
>Do you know what that difference is?
>--
As far as the kids are concerned, there is no difference.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <rsmorris-250...@news.erols.com> rsmo...@erols.com (R. Morris) writes:
: I was talking to a friend who thought that it was ok for a 7-year old to
: fly a plane.
: I asked him if he thought that Jessica drove the car that brought her to
: the airport.
: He told me, "Of course not. That would be unsafe!"
: (point, set, and match: my favor)
You cheated. How's it feel?
--
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
Christopher John Markle (cma...@hydra.acs.uci.edu) wrote:
: As far as the kids are concerned, there is no difference.
Look up the word "intent" in your websters. That may help.
--
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Tim McGill
In article <cmarkle....@hydra.acs.uci.edu>,
cma...@hydra.acs.uci.edu (Christopher John Markle) wrote:
>dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com () writes:
>
>>William Dodd (dd...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
>>: Jessica's mom wanted her nine year old son to fly
>>: over the processions. Apparently she wanted to lose
>>: that kid as well.
>
>>I doubt she wanted to lose Jessica.
>
>>: Here is a woman who ought to be
>>: awarded the "Susan Smith Mother of the Year Award."
>
>>I find your statements cruel, ignorant, and insulting.
>
>>There is a difference between sending a little girl up in an
>>airplane with a *Certified* *Flight* *Instructor* and
>>driving two infants into a river while bound in their car
>>seats.
>
>>Do you know what that difference is?
>
>
> As far as the kids are concerned, there is no difference.
>
>
>
>
You don't even know what CFI means do you? For you, I will tell, IT'S
CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR not certified.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
Tim McGill (mr...@goodnet.com) wrote:
: In article <cmarkle....@hydra.acs.uci.edu>,: >>I find your statements cruel, ignorant, and insulting.
: >
: >>There is a difference between sending a little girl up in an
: >>airplane with a *Certified* *Flight* *Instructor* and
: >>driving two infants into a river while bound in their car
: >>seats.
: >>Do you know what that difference is?
: Do YOU know the difference between an apple and orange??
: You don't even know what CFI means do you? For you, I will tell, IT'S
: CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR not certified.
For the record, many, many, many people in the aviation industry
use the word "certified" instead of "certificated". I was aware
of the difference and it wasn't worth quibbling over.
--
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com